Hi, Susan,
Quoting Susan Kline <skline@peak.org>:
> At 04:06 PM 2/4/2005 -0800, you wrote:
> >(Maybe Susan has a copy?)
>
> Susan JUST HAPPENS to have a copy -- not having a son to "tidy up" my
> files, I have been able to go right to it. Of course it helps that this
> post dates from 1997, back when I still took the time to sort and
> organize.
> Back then I thought that if my In Box had 300 posts I was way behind. I
> had
> yet to discover that Eudora can handle 5000+ posts in a box and (usually)
> not tangle or lose any. Sometimes I wish she WOULD lose some ...
AHA! Thank you! Avery also had found and sent along a copy. I am
presently revising what is included in this one...hopefully to include more
information and clarity.
I have discovered that Andy left all my stuff very neatly stacked...all in
one file drawer, in whatever order they happened to have come to hand...so,
at least there is a central location!
Best.
Horace
>
> Best,
> Susan
>
>
> **************************************************************************
> In November, 1997, Horace wrote (to Avery):
> **************************************************************************
>
> NY and Hamburg pianos require very different approaches, depending on
> the period of manufacture.
>
> Some background:
>
> Prior to W.W.II, both factories manufactured instruments that, while
> different in certain ways, were virtually identical in others. So much
> so that from the earliest period of the re-establishment of
> manufacturing in Hamburg, NY was shipping everything from action parts
> to completed pianos to London and Berlin, as well as Hamburg. Yes, parts
> came this way as well, and not all models were consistently produced in
> both plants.
>
> The destruction of the Hamburg facilities through the firebombing of
> Dresden and Hamburg during W.W.II created a real problem. With the end
> of the war, NY had its own problems, and insufficient reserves to
> rebuild in Germany. Enter Louis Renner, et al. Renner offered to rebuild
> the facilities in Hamburg. There was, of course, a catch. The catch was
> that Steinway would have to use actions, back actions, hammers, and
> other parts from Renner. This began the real divergence between the two
> branches of the company. The Renner parts, while generally conforming to
> NY specifications, actually were (are) quite different. The reasons do
> not matter, the matter just is what it is. The results are the
> differences of touch and tone which we have come to expect from the two
> factories.
>
> What then, are these differences?
>
> Let's start with NY.
>
> The following general procedure was in use up through, roughly, the
> 1987-1988 production period.
>
> First, the location of the keyframe and cheek blocks was set relative
> to the arms of the case of the piano. In the earlier days, the keyframe
> and keybed were then drilled for tuning pins used as locators. Then the
> back of the keybed was planed dead flat. The keyframe was roughly fit to
> this, (the forefinisher could only rough-set this because it was usually
> done without the keys or the stack) and then the dags were installed.
> The dags were located by gluing a piece of 1/8th inch veneer to the back
> of the keyframe (or the front of the dag, if the foreman was not
> looking), and then inserting the keyframe into the action bay and
> clamping it in place. The dags were then glued in place at intervals
> determined by the location of the veneer pieces. After the glue had set,
> the fit of the keyframe was checked again. (There is a lot of
> misunderstanding about the purpose of the dags. They are NOT there just
> for transportation. They serve the crucial function {in the NY pianos}
> of providing stability for the back rail of the action. Too tight, and
> the action will not shift reliably. Too loose, and the action flops
> around and the touch is not stable.)
>
> When this is done, the keybed is planed concavely front to back along
> the axis of the grain (or perpendicular to the keys, if you prefer). It
> is planed such that the depth of the convexity is app. 1/16 inch; and
> its deepest point is under the center rail of the keyframe. Then 1/8th
> to 1/4th inch of the leading side of the top of the keybed is planed
> convex by 1/32nd to 1/16th inch, with the high point at the center of
> the keybed. The leading 1/8th to 1/4th inch of the leading edge of the
> underside of the front rail is then planed to be a mirror image of the
> keybed; that is, convex in the opposite direction by 1/32nd to 1/16th
> inch. The keyframe is constructed so that only the end stretchers
> between the front and back rail are flat. These are then planed so that
> they do not touch the keybed, save at the narrow areas described above.
> The procedure for locating the cheek blocks has varied over the
> years. The most prevalent iteration being to use the location as set
> from the arms, and then locate the brass guides relative to the pins in
> the keyframe.
>
> Once that has been done, the keyframe can be inserted and clamped in
> place with the cheek blocks, and the forefinisher can work to perfect
> the mating of the keyframe and keybed with (hopefully) fine sandpaper.
> This whole thing is a part of the overall forefinishing process,
> which, in Steinway's case, is a patent process. (Basically, that means
> that not only can it not be copied, but they cannot vary from it and
> still legally use the descriptive language from the patent documents.)
> The purpose of this section of the forefinishing process is to provide
> the most solid connection of the action to the balance of the piano
> possible, so that the pianist may get the feedback of the vibrations of
> the piano through the keys. (This speaks directly to the recent threads
> on the forum, re: "singing rims" etc.) The original patent documents
> describe this feedback quite dramatically and make interesting reading
> anyway...
>
> This process was used from very early on, right up through the use of
> the Pratt-Read keys and keyframes, until 1985, when the switch was made
> to Renner action parts and Renner and Kluge keys and keyframes.
> Servicing keyframes from this period is usually a process of figuring
> out what was done during the original manufacture and why it was done.
> Most often, in my experience, this has involved some degree of seeing
> through the mist created by some well-meaning, but ill-advised
> colleague. Basically, even if some set of arbitrary numbers seem to be
> out of whack, if the original work seems to have been done a certain
> way, just follow that. There is usually some (good) reason that
> something was done, and most of the time, you just have to redo your own
> work when you find out why.
>
> These pre-1985 keyframes were made of heavy Oak, Walnut and Maple.
> They were well seasoned and held regulation well. The Renner/Kluge
> keyframes are made of European species, are much lighter and are
> designed for a different kind of piano altogether.
>
> Beginning in 1987-1988, NY began planing the keybeds mostly flat,
> with areas of concavity around the maple plugs for the glides. While
> some improvements have been made over the earlier keyframes, they are
> wildly susceptible to weather changes, as I am sure you have discovered.
> Further, their lightness of mass influences not only their ability to
> hold regulation, but also their ability to transmit energy. Their
> planing in the front rail area is usually limited to the last 4-6" of
> distance from the ends of the keyframe, and seems to be further limited
> to the keybed itself - there is little, if any, attempt to mirror the
> work. The result, of course, is a keyframe which is never quite stable;
> which brings me to:
>
> Hamburg keyframes.
>
> In the period immediately following W.W.II, the Hamburg pianos were,
> at first, just put together from whatever could be salvaged from London
> and Berlin, as well as Hamburg. There was also, for a time, some bigger
> pieces coming from NY. But it was a different world. The influence of
> Renner can hardly be overstated. Renner was, and is, the world's largest
> producer of piano parts. They make parts to manufacturer's
> specifications, to be sure; but, the manufacturers make sure their
> specifications fit what Renner is set up to do. No company was/is more
> in this predicament than Steinway. Has it been all bad? Definitely not,
> but it has significantly influenced the course of the company.
> So, what about Hamburg?
>
> What about it, indeed?
>
> Because things were in turmoil for a while, I will take an arbitrary
> date of 1960 for talking about Hamburg keyframes. Yes, it was mostly
> stable during the preceding 15 years, but there was variation.
> Anyway, the post W.W.II Hamburg piano became a truly European
> instrument. Nowhere is this more true than in the concept of the action,
> and its relation to the rest of the piano.
>
> In Hamburg, the keybeds are generally dead flat. None of the planing
> described for the NY pianos above. The action frames are what you see on
> the post-1985 NY instruments, lightly built and highly susceptible to
> weather changes.
>
> The installation is markedly different as well. All of the fitting is
> done to predetermined dimensions. Keyframe, cheek block, dag and action
> placement are done independently. At one point (I think it is no longer
> the case), the entire action was introduced as a finished unit quite
> late in the manufacturing process. The keyframe itself, while arched, is
> so light that it depends on the glides for structural support. These
> actions depend for their bedding on making things work. The keybed,
> being flat, does not lend itself to being replaned. The keyframe, in
> many of the ones I have seen, is only planed toward the ends, so that it
> is a relatively sharp angle. Smoothing this angle is sometimes all that
> is needed.
>
> END
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC